Ripping CDs from Library

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Nullpersona

It is not illegal to maintain a copy of intellectual property you have access to.

For some values of “have access to,” sure. Not where that value is “borrowed from library.”

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@11811

Philadelphia Free Library has a deal with Sony that allows cardholders 3 free downloads per week from the catalogue of music provided by Sony. The catalogue tends toward newer Top 40-type stuff, but some of the older stuff is pretty good.

Zombie though this is, since it’s already been raised, and I’ve just been reading about this, I’ll add this interesting link to an article in the Washington Post. Vehement opposition to the CTEA was anticipated from such professional groups as librarians and historians, but they pretty much threw in the towel after some modest concessions were added to the bill.

[md2000]

One point missed is the difference between illegal and civil tort. It’s not illegal to break a contract, it just leaves you open to being sued and owing damages. Similarly violating copyright can be a civil wrong. There are various circumstances where it becomes a criminal offense. But, it’s not theft. It’s criminal copyright violation. Theft is depriving an owner of possession of his property.

One important point to make about copyright - there is a massive collection, many items still relevant today, of 1930’s (and now 1940’s) works. That can’t really be said of 1920’s silent movies or the relatively poor quality recordings of the era - or earlier which are mostly curiosities of “museum artifacts”. Many of the newer works are still owned by corporations with interests in continuing to exploit them. So - no surprise that the paid persuaders achieved their goal of getting copyright extended.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@md2000

But, it’s not theft.

Why Copyright Infringement is Theft

My favorite part of Falkvinge’s post is where he claimed that we “should look in the nearest lawbook” since “in no book of laws on this entire planet are property laws (where stealing is defined) and copyright monopoly laws defined in the same section.” This claim is easily refuted. For example, Section 2319 of the U.S. Code, which defines “Criminal infringement of a copyright,” is found in Chapter 113 of Title 18, which is entitled “Stolen Property.” Section 3931 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, which defines “Theft of unpublished dramas and musical compositions,” is found in Chapter 39 of Title 18, which is entitled “Theft and Related Offenses.” And Section 5/16-7 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, which defines “Unlawful use of recorded sounds or images,” is found in Subdivision 5 of Article 16, which is entitled “General Theft.” It’s trivially easy to find many more examples just like these. Having read many posts by Falkvinge (as well as many law books), I don’t get the impression that he’s actually opened many law books himself.

And much, much more at great length.

And he leaves out the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997.

Bottom line (my words). Theft in law is not necessarily the same word as theft in common speech. But trying to define “infringement” as some special thing that is not theft, that is not stealing intellectual properly, that intellectual property is not property, that somehow piracy and other violations are justifiable, are all special pleading using weasel words. For all ordinary purposes in ordinary discussion, criminal violation of copyright is theft, and so may be civil violations. People do not want to admit they are thieves and will go to almost any lengths to deny it in their heads. We shouldn’t privilege these denials. Call it theft. Keep calling it theft. Make them squirm.